Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.orgNote: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your
letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish
them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:"
header!]

In response to Mr. Smith's most recent article listed on the bighead
press site [and TLE, "New Maps of Bulgaria"Editor]:

The Libertarian Printing Press?

Editor L.Neil Smith?

As a reader I would venture that a publishing house run by Mr. L. Neil
Smith would be a great success. All libertairians should consider the
success of such a publisher as a victory in the idealogical war waged
against libertarians and all who would avoid the statist ideal.

Please Mr Smith start a publishing house if you sell shares for a
reasonable rate I will buy as many shares as I can afford. I think many
of your fans might as well, a small buisness loan and sales in advance
of printing could get you off of the ground.

Your buisness model could include contracting out printing, as well as
all other aspects: you could even ask for volunteers to read submisions.

You could even sell copies by accepting advance payment to pay for printing.

Yes. It is a waste of activists' time and energy, and that is an
opportunity cost to the cause of freedom. Writing letters to
advertisers should be viewed much like buying lottery tickets,
homeopathic medicine, prayer, and voting. Helpful results are so
rare that we should regard the practice as a superstition.



The One Laptop Per Child machine is claimed to start shipping to the
US on November 12th for $400. I expect ebay will quickly lower the
US price from $400 to $200 + DHL shipping.

I haven't put my hands on a machine, and it could be a dog. But what
if it's pretty good? Consider the effect that just ten machines could
have in an oppressed place, if they were used to smuggle videos into
youtube of oppressors in uniform beating people. Ten new videos, six
days a week. Turn it into a TV show on the Internet, call it THUGS.
How many cheap machines roaming around a city does it take to update
the location of oppressors on a layer in google maps? What's the PR
value of a google earth model of a city of bombed-out wreckage? Could
beatings be displayed in real-time in Second Life?

Naah. You'd rather write advertisers, so the old media would
eventually screen less propaganda, so the majority would eventually
vote better, so new legislators would eventually pass better laws,
and more freedom would result. How much leverage are you working
against?

Back before the Big R a person's identity and value was tied into his membership in a group such as his family, sect, fraternal orders, etc.

He was expected to behave in a way that reinforced group solidarity. If a member of the group was lynched for witchcraft and this got rid of tensions threatening solidarity this was Okay, even desirable if the lynching reinforced the sense of solidarity.

During the Renaissance value was redefined as being intrinsic to the individual. You actually had to have some evidence that he was a witch before you could execute him for witchcraft. This evidence included left handedness and being green eyed (guess two bits of data that would be used to describe me in an APB), keeping familiars, prospering when his enemies failed etc.. Hey, it's a step up.

This would evolve into the more modern concept that it's ok for someone to be a witch as long as they don't abuse the Craft to try to harm people. For example, a few years ago there was a case in Mississippi of people being convicted of assault because they tried to cast harmful hexes on their local law enforcement.

This evolution from group identity over all to the state existing to protect individual rights is a consequence of the Renaissance and its humanist philosophy. Of course, tyrants would like to return to the days when any person and any right could be sacrificed to maintain group solidarity, especially if they get to pick who and what rights. It doesn't help that human nature as a social animal militates to support this collectivist point of view.

Notice how wannabe tyrants of right and left wish to dump reason and humanism as principals used to set government agenda and argue that rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms (from knives over 4" to machineguns), are collective and may be restricted for the general good. And notice how lonely it feels sometimes when you defend your rights and personal integrity.

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few. . . And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Vladimir Lenin
B. Benito Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the above

3) "(We) . . .can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own. . . in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Augusto Pinochet
B. Slobodan Milošević
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Scroll down for answers

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above, Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above, Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above, Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above, Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above, Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above, Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

When I was younger I viewed guns as just another tool or piece of sporting gear. Meeting the responsibilities of everyday life I got in in a situation where I believed I need money more than I needed a gun. So I became a man without firearms.

As I got older I realized that owning guns is necessary to both assert and defend my rights under the Bill of Rights. Next month, next bonus, next pay raise, next paid off bill, I'll finally rearm. My support for the Second Amendment became and remains a part of a frenetic struggle to buy at least one gun and cartridges before the supporters of gun control find a way to cut off honest people's access to guns.

Gun ownership is a political right, like speaking up for your beliefs and voting. If you do not assert these rights you will eventually lose them and those who hate those rights will say "Well he wasn't using them anyhow."

Guns are tools and why not sell tools you aren't using. Then one day you realize that simply owning a gun is a chore, the task of asserting your freedom and thus protecting freedom for yourself, your family, and your fellow Americans. Your guns are tools you use simply by possessing them and thus exercising and defending the Bill of Rights.

And now I scramble to correct a mistake.

All your rights are tools to protect the life, liberty, and prosperity of yourself and your family. Fail to exercise these rights and you risk losing them and failing your obligation to yourself and your kin.

Alert from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms OwnershipAmerica's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

October 29, 2007

JPFO ALERT: Another Glimmer of Hope

Last week we introduced L. Neil Smith's article "A Glimmer of Hope", which can be found at www.jpfo.org/smith-glimmer.htm. Based on the novel Hope, which Smith penned in conjunction with JPFO's own Aaron Zelman, "A Glimmer of Hope" details the qualities of the novel's protagonist (and presidential candidate) Alexander Hope.

Today we introduce the second part of that article, "Another Glimmer of Hope", which you can view at www.jpfo.org/smith-glimmer2.htm. What would happen if we had a government of the Bill of Rights, by the Bill of Rights, and for the Bill of Rights . . . and we no longer feared our government?